Objective: To evaluate the reliability of subjective diagnoses of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) using flexible cystourethroscopy as compared to the actual degree of bladder outlet obstruction as measured by a pressure-flow study (PFS), and to investigate the difference of subjective diagnoses among different urologists. Methods: A standardized PFS was done in 33 BPO patients. The degree of BPO (0∼VI) was determined by linear PURR. Flexible cystourethroscopy was also performed in order to evaluate the BPO by video recording. Nine urologists, who have served on the Japanese Board of Urology, diagnosed the degree of the BPO (0∼VI) by watching the video recordings. The degree of obstruction revealed by cystourethroscopy was dependent upon the subjective impression of each urologist who wrote their diagnoses on questionnaires. Results: A positive correlation was found between the results of the PFS and the subjective evaluations based on the cystourethroscopy video (p < 0.001), and the trained urologists arrived at a similar obstruction grade in most cases. However, relatively large gaps between linear PURR and cystoscopic finding were found in some cases. We suggest that these gaps could be caused by dynamic obstructions which cannot be detected by cystourethroscopy. Conclusions: Even though it is difficult to establish an objective measurement of the degree of a BPO using cystourethroscopy, our results show that it is a simple and reliable tool for the assessment of BPO in most cases.

Keywords:
Benign prostatic obstruction, Pressure-flow study, Cystourethroscopy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel
2000
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.